Likes: terrorizing mortals; libraries; serious eyeshadow; chain wallets; suspiciously lifelike marble statues
Dislikes: people who aren't statues yet; bros; Perseus
[Graphic of an older version of Encyclopedia Britannica, with inset text claiming that it is a compendium of reference books containing the most current information about the USSR. Logo at the bottom reads “TL;DR Wikipedia.”]
Sure, but stuff like this is why people caution against Wikipedia: blatant personal bias passed off as fact, using shitty research and partial truths. As a matter of fact, the Britannica does contain the most up to date info on the USSR. It also contains the most up to date info on Fritz Lang, Pope Urban VII, and the Mayan pyramids, but we since those are clearly historical examples, it would make the OP look like an ass to use them instead, right? So instead they pretended that current editions of the Britannica still refer to the USSR as an existing state, when that’s not even a smart lie.
In my cold, reptilian claws, at this very moment, is the Index (L-Z) of the 2010 Britannica. When looking in the index for the USSR, this is what one finds:
See that “hist. state”? The “hist.” doesn’t stand for “histrionic,” although the OP’s transparent attempts to denigrate standard reference sources and trained research professionals, no doubt to make up for some personal lack on their own part, is pretty histrionic. It stands for “historical,” because print reference media which is still in production tends to be updated at pretty frequent intervals, and articles on major topics will of course be altered as facts change. Interest in the USSR didn’t end the minute it ceased to exist as a political entity; it has historical importance, as well as ramifications on events occurring in Eurasia right now. It’s almost as if the OP, and other Wikipedia proponents, are lying by omission or something!
I don’t get the animosity from the OP and their ilk, who apparently perceive themselves as ~edgy~ in their embracing of crowdsourced information, despite the fact that people have been crowdsourcing information since time began; the problems inherent in crowdsourcing information are precisely why teachers, librarians, and researchers now frown on it. The thing is, very few librarians are saying Wikipedia is evil, or that people should never use it. Pretty much anyone with internet access and a modicum of savvy uses Wikipedia at some point, including librarians. The speed with which it is updated, the breadth of coverage, and its willingness to address popular culture or topics not yet treated by many academic sources make it a valuable resource. Like any encyclopedia, however, Wikipedia’s articles are of varying quality; additionally, since literally anyone can edit articles, there is little quality control regarding the qualifications of contributors. “But we have crowdsourced editing!” Wikipedia proponents might say. They do indeed, and often it produces very fine results, but that does not make it the equivalent of genuine peer review or expert editorial oversight, grounded both in academic understanding and a professional ethic that values accuracy and objectivity.
Until those are verifiably and consistently part of Wikipedia’s oversight process, Wikipedia is a “good-enough” source of information. As such, it’s very useful. It’s a place to learn about topics for personal interest. It contains information that can introduce students to unfamiliar concepts, such as profession-specific jargon, historical events, or the context for newsworthy current events. It is a springboard to further research in scholarly resources, which is usually expected of students and academics, who are (and should be) held to higher than a “good-enough” standard.
There’s a lot of positive things to be said about Wikipedia, but condemning reliable academic sources as “tl;dr” is shamefully anti-intellectual, and betrays that despite the high-mindedness of Wikipedia’s tone and supposed aims, their attitude, too, is that “good-enough” is acceptable. “Too long, didn’t read this full article detailing original scientific research relevant to my doctoral thesis, decided to read watered-down, dumbed-down summary in a crowdsourced online encyclopedia instead”: is that really acceptable? “Sure, I need to understand the complexities of the causes and outcomes of the Hundred Years War, but this nuanced, well-researched, lively book on the subject is just too long. I’m not going to read that—I’m going to read a few pages at a crowdsourced online encyclopedia instead. That will surely give me a depth of understanding matched only by the foremost scholars in the field!” By holding itself up as something it’s not—a valid academic source that supposedly delivers all the information a person really needs to know about any given topic—Wikipedia is not only making claims for itself that are obviously untrue, but insulting the intellectual curiosity of its users. By lying in the process, it’s revealing itself to have motives other than pure, and perhaps a lack of sureness about its superiority as an information resource.
Men celebrated our sexual liberation — our willingness to freely give and enjoy blow jobs and group sex, our willingness to experiment with anal penetration — but ultimately many males revolted when we stated that our bodies were territories that they could not occupy at will. Men who were ready for female sexual liberation if it meant free pussy, no strings attached, were rarely ready for feminist female sexual agency. This agency gave us the right to say yes to sex, but it also empowered us to say no.
Education and poverty are at crisis levels.
8. Children that live below the poverty line are 1.3 times more likely to have developmental delays or learning disabilities than those who don’t live in poverty.
9. By the end of the 4th grade, African-American, Hispanic and low-income students are already 2 years behind grade level. By the time they reach the 12th grade they are 4 years behind.
I feel an all-consuming feeling that we’re laying our world to waste and there’s little I can do about it except say there’s nothing I can do and eat Indian curry.
I feel the same
"fight like a girl" is meant to imply weakness, but some girls don’t play nice.
♥ available for a limited time only ♥
Putting on makeup is such a spiritual experience I watch myself go from a 3 to a 9 right in front of my mirror I love it
no, if you are putting on makeup, I don’t care who you are or what you look like, you go from about a 10 to 1
keep talking shit you gonna go from a basic ass 2 to a 6-feet-under
i may seem like an angry person on the surface but deep inside im actually angrier
when your friend is going through a tough time and you just want to help them out
Hot Topic is known amongst artist groups as one of the worst offenders of art theft in U.S. retailers. I know artists are important to What Pumpkin, and I’d imagine multiple cases of art theft would be a very big deal. The most well-known of the cases were stolen fan art from independent artists, which is the same demographic the Design Contest was aimed to. I’m an artist myself and I wouldn’t want to support a store that steals from my peers.
The people running Hot Topic have zero respect to artists and to copyright law. They’ve been ripping-off independent artists’ storefronts, and continue do so. The whole company really should have been shut down long ago.
If you support artists, independent, fan artist, or any kind, you should oppose Hot Topic and MSPA’s association with them!
Tell What Pumpkin to kick Hot Topic out of the Design contest RIGHT NOW.
We have so little time left to stop this please tell them that it is completely unacceptable to do any sort of business with petty art thieves.
Even if you don’t know what to say, or if you think it would compromise the contestants; It won’t. Just please voice your thoughts in anyway you can put them. Don’t let Hot Topic get a dime out of Homestuck.
Page 2 of 2292